Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuddle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 194.129.210.61 (talk) at 10:55, 5 October 2007 (Fuddle). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fuddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No claim of notability or sources offered in article. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't use the word in this sense. Contested prod. Contesting editor has added a reference to a Derbyshire dictionary -- this word may be more appropriate in a list of Derbyshire terms. Fabrictramp 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument for deletion here is that its a 'localism', I am mearly pointing out that this is not an argument for deletion. User:Bmoyni 15:47, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)
Thanksgiving is a major American holiday. If "Fuddle" was a major English holiday, then I would have said "keep". Cogswobbletalk 13:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it can only get into Wikipedia if it is "major"? I thought the idea of an Encyclopedia was that it gives people information on items that are not widely known!! User:Bmoyni 15:44, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)
Bmoyni compared "Fuddle" to "Thanksgiving". I simply pointed out that this comparison isn't even remotely accurate. If "Fuddle" was a major English holiday, I would have said "keep". If "Fuddle" was an Oscar winning movie, I would have said "keep". In other words, if there appeared to be a valid argument for keeping it, I would have said "keep". Cogswobbletalk 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is it's a localism that does not assert it's notability. If it were a localism which spread into wide-use, it would no longer be a localism, but a neologism or some other -logism, which would still need to be notable. If you can find reliable and verifiable sources that fuddle is used in the manner presented, then I'll strike my delete. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the reference. User:Bmoyni 16:16, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)
I have, and what I saw was a list of non-notable local slang. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the definition of slang is that its non-notable, otherwise it wouldn't be slang! The reference proves that it is used in the context that the page suggests. User:Bmoyni 16:21, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)
Many slang words have taken on notability. warez d'oh are two that strike me. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. User:Bmoyni 11:53, 5 October 2007 (BST)